This post is in regard to an article that Erin just posted, seen here. It's been a while since I've been active and it seems it's been a while since much editoralism has occured on the blog, so I'm going stray from all of the news posting a bit and take the advice Alec gave me early on in my blog training that involved expressing my opinion.

First of all, "The Daily" should not apologize.  Freedom of press isn't something to be limited to moderate views that will cause minimal outburst, nor to popular opinions, nor to anything.  Granted, I'm just as disgusted as anyone when I realize that White Supremacists have access to communicative devices and just as amused when I see promotions of anarchy and Stalinism published or uttered by the naively radical on the left.  But it is not my place or anyone else's to restrict their ideals or their words.  To imply an old cliché, words are merely words.  They are to be combated by words alone, not by censorship any more than by violence.  As much as I disagree with Mr. Fay, to stifle his right to opinion is to take a step backwards from the best vision of freedom that this country has to offer.

That said, I find his entire paper, which humorously is an accurate representation of the overall conservative view on gay rights, to be a ridiculous and embarrassing attempt at an argument.  The analogous slippery-slope fallacies of the inevitable acceptance of bestiality, pedophilia, and other lewd behaviors following the legalization of homosexual marriage has been drawn-out to a laughable extent by the right.  And it was a laughable argument to begin with.  The difference between two consenting adults forming a legal union and the tragedy of a brainwashed girl falling victim to a depraved old man's decadence is colossal, and that the two situations are even considered as welcome in the arena of respectable debate indicates the despicable, desperate, and juvenile status of the anti-homosexual movement.  

Fay postulates that the violation of one social norm will no doubt lead to the next.  To that, I say good.  He should take a look into the history of America and the world and observe some of the social "norms" that have been prominent because of bigotry, mercilessness, hedonism, and that oh-so-fallacious appeal to tradition.  Slavery.  Limited suffrage.  Religious singularity and oppression.  Persecution of innocents.  Violence for show.  Aristocracy and monarchy, mass hedonism and immorality, sweatshops, racism, sexism, worker exploitation and xenophobia and nepotistic imbalances that allow the incompetent and uncaring to control a level of fate which they've yet to even consider.  All of the above are injustices that have at one point or another--some unfortunately persisting to this day--been declared states of societal normalcy by whoever felt they were so, by those peculiar persons who for whatever reason posses far too great an influence and far too powerful a conviction in their infallible subjective realities.   Many of their fellow unseen humans were not.  One man's social norm is another's social flaw, and I believe the case is the same between you and I.  The intolerance of the homosexual community is, both legally and culturally, an ailment to this nation that should be remedied and destroyed as soon as possible.

The pursuit of happiness does not, for everyone, correlate to your individual path.  This is why I cannot respect the traditionalist opinions of the social conservative.  From Guantanamo to gay marriage, there is a consistent tendency to deny anyone of rights who is frightening or discomforting to the sheltered, singular, supposedly status quo conservative culture.  Because someone is an anomaly to their tradition, that someone is no longer entirely human, that someone has become a nuisance and a threat and if they cannot be rehabilitated, if they cannot conform to the lifestyle that has somehow been appropriated as the normal and true American Way, then they are to be ignored or shunned.

The only argument against gay marriage that I feel bears any substance at all is that of marriage being a strictly religious institution.  As I am not religious and state and law are to remain separated, this conveniently cuts many advocates of gay marriage out of the circle of influence.  However, this argument, often accompanied by the conciliatory offer of "civil unions", is far too reminiscent of Plessy vs. Ferguson, a law passed in 1896 which sought to ensure an equalization of black rights to white rights while perpetuating the contemporary state of a segregated society.  It promised blacks "separate but equal institutions" under the law and unraveled the distinctions of "blacks only" and "whites only", to be applied to facilities as small-scale as bathrooms and drinking fountains to intellectual and practical necessities such as transportation and education.  Of course, only one term held true to these institutions— separate—and for decades equality would be little more than an ideal mostly undesired by those in command. 

I will agree with the non-point that race is biological and that though increasing proof surfaces that homosexuality is a genetic entity, sexual preference and race are two very different concepts.  However, the only difference lying between racial oppression and homosexual oppression is the practical fact that racial oppression was more severe.  But the principle remains the same--the rights of women, blacks, Asians, and other minority groups in this nation began with the desire for equality and acceptance from the minority in question and its supporters, a desire always met with mass contempt and skepticism and followed by government attempts to offer measures of appeasement that fell short of any ultimate goal.  These measures were never sufficient, but because of their existence and the existence of an unaccepting population, the course to full civil rights has found itself buried by hurdles and setbacks time after time.  And yet, though the effects of intolerance reverberate ever so slightly into the future, the course is always scaled in its entirety, allowing the oppressed, regardless of the chagrin of the oppressors, a valuable place in an improved American society.   What is inevitable is not America's decline into sexual decadence, but its evolution to a higher level of tolerance.  Tradition and appeasement will only slow the process, and because of these there may be several unfortunate lifetimes in which gays are left unwed. 

Most outrageous of all--and I will cut this "short", seeing as I have many finals to study for and many projects to complete--is Fay's notion that to legalize gay marriage is to ignored the supposed "problem" of homosexuality, as if it is something that can be eradicated or resolved, like a pest or an economic recession.  Of course, homosexuality can be repressed.  Homosexuals can spend their entire lives resisting "temptation" and bearing hetero facades in order to coincide with Fay's idea of a moral culture.  They can be sent to "therapeutic conversion" camps, they can be read ancient religious verse after ancient religious verse, they can be scolded and stigmatized and told that they are a problem until they finally agree.  But unfortunately for Fay, the gay culture--and, in a large way, our society--has moved far beyond these selfish expectations.  Gays exist, they will exist, and America will not topple at something so benign as their existence.

John Fay's piece, which I shamelessly decree as homophobic, was published in The Daily as a fair counter to Sarah Gaither's excellent, pro-gay piece.  While I believe that Gaither made a much more solid, original, and effective (if only by matter of owning better logic) argument, Fay's presence of opinion is not only desirable in the modern day, but vital.  People of all sides need to be heard and read.  People should say, write, and publish what they believe in and should not be censored by controversy or criticism.  Homophobia, sexism, and racism dwell in the minds of millions of Americans and will not conveniently cease to exist out of the popular fear to mention or discuss them.  I respect Fay for expressing his controversial opinions through so public a medium, for it allows his opponents the chance to debate him, which, in the scope of our ideological desire for gay equality, will allow us an infinitely more effective attempt to influence than is ever allowed in the inspiring but ineffective sermons to the converted that tend to stagnate these kinds of movements in agreeable cycles.  With each legal and cultural declaration of equality and tolerance, there are masses of disaffected Americans bearing the same ideas of the past and brooding in bitterness as they are told to stay silent.  We declare them bigoted,

I have many a friend and family member who possesses similar sentiments to John Fay.  The feeling is understandable.  Homosexual culture, though certainly definable and prominent enough to be witnessed, is not an aspect of the mainstream.  Here in Spokane, the openly gay population is miniscule, and anti-gay sentiments are common.  This is mostly a result of the dehumanization of homosexuals that has led them to be viewed not as a group of individuals, but a collective, culture-threatening entity.  To most, they are like every enemy we've ever fought, every criminal we've imprisoned, every race that we've tainted our history by oppressing--there is no face, no personality to associate them with, while the grand and convenient labels of "gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, and homosexual" are at full disposal of those witnessing the culture from an unaware distance.  These labels are not vulgar, but other than the vicarious viewing of media or hearing of stories, they virtually comprise the entirety of many Americans, save for an occasional gay friend or acquaintance.  Debate will only accomplish so much; the homosexual community must be humanized.  How to successful do this, I am not sure, though I am sure that in the process, we cannot risk a new dehumanization of those who are uncomfortable with gay society, for even if the distant future has allowed a new place in society for gays, those who once feared, disliked, hated, or pitied homosexuals will maintain and continue their perceptions, regardless of society's direction, and equality will peak at a state that is stagnant and unsatisfactory.

---

---